Perforated cecal diverticulitis with CT diagnosis and medical management.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tsetse C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6176041 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Colonic diverticulitis is a painful gastrointestinal disease that recurs unpredictably and can lead to chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Gastroenterologists commonly care for patients with this disease. The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update is to provide practical and evidence-based advice for management of diverticulitis. We reviewed systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies to develop 14 best practices. In brief, computed tomography is often necessary to make a diagnosis. Rarely, a colon malignancy is misdiagnosed as diverticulitis. Whether patients should have a colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis depends on the patient's history, most recent colonoscopy, and disease severity and course. In patients with a history of diverticulitis and chronic symptoms, alternative diagnoses should be excluded with both imaging and lower endoscopy. Antibiotic treatment can be used selectively rather than routinely in immunocompetent patients with mild acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Antibiotic treatment is strongly advised in immunocompromised patients. To reduce the risk of recurrence, patients should consume a high-quality diet, have a normal body mass index, be physically active, not smoke, and avoid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use except aspirin prescribed for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. At the same time, patients should understand that genetic factors also contribute to diverticulitis risk. Patients should be educated that the risk of complicated diverticulitis is highest with the first presentation. An elective segmental resection should not be advised based on the number of episodes. Instead, a discussion of elective segmental resection should be personalized to consider severity of disease, patient preferences and values, as well as risks and benefits.
| S-EPMC7878331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite availability of effective therapies, peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains a major global disease, resulting from a combination of persistent Helicobacter pylori infection and widespread use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Albeit endoscopy definitely represents the mainstay diagnostic technique, patients presenting to emergency departments with unexplained abdominal pain generally undergo multidetector CT as an initial investigation. Although superficial ulcers generally remain inconspicuous, careful multiplanar CT interpretation may allow to detect deep ulcers, secondary mural and extraluminal signs of peptic gastroduodenitis, thereby allowing timely endoscopic verification and appropriate treatment. This pictorial essay aims to provide radiologists with an increased familiarity with CT diagnosis of non-perforated PUD, with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Following an overview of current disease epidemiology and complications, it explains the appropriate CT acquisition and interpretation techniques, and reviews with several examples the cross-sectional findings of uncomplicated PUD. Afterwards, the CT features of PUD complications such as ulcer haemorrhage, gastric outlet obstruction, biliary and pancreatic fistulisation are presented.• Gastric and duodenal peptic ulcers are increasingly caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs • Multiplanar CT interpretation allows detecting deep ulcers and secondary signs of gastroduodenitis • CT diagnosis of uncomplicated peptic disease relies on direct and indirect signs • Currently the commonest complication, haemorrhage may be treated with transarterial embolisation • Other uncommon complications include gastric outlet obstruction and biliopancreatic fistulisation.
| S-EPMC5621988 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportancePerforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, with significant morbidity. Short-term results from randomized clinical trials have indicated that laparoscopic lavage is a feasible alternative to resection. However, it appears that no long-term results are available.ObjectiveTo compare long-term (5-year) outcomes of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and primary resection as treatments of perforated purulent diverticulitis.Design, setting, and participantsThis international multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 21 hospitals in Sweden and Norway, which enrolled patients between February 2010 and June 2014. Long-term follow-up was conducted between March 2018 and November 2019. Patients with symptoms of left-sided acute perforated diverticulitis, indicating urgent surgical need and computed tomography-verified free air, were eligible. Those available for trial intervention (Hinchey stages <IV) were included in the long-term follow-up.InterventionsPatients were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or colon resection based on computer-generated, center-stratified block randomization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was severe complications within 5 years. Secondary outcomes included mortality, secondary operations, recurrences, stomas, functional outcomes, and quality of life.ResultsOf 199 randomized patients, 101 were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and 98 were assigned to colon resection. At the time of surgery, perforated purulent diverticulitis was confirmed in 145 patients randomized to lavage (n = 74) and resection (n = 71). The median follow-up was 59 (interquartile range, 51-78; full range, 0-110) months, and 3 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving a final analysis of 73 patients who had had laparoscopic lavage (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [13] years; 39 men [53%]) and 69 who had received a resection (mean [SD] age, 63.5 [14] years; 36 men [52%]). Severe complications occurred in 36% (n = 26) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 35% (n = 24) in the resection group (P = .92). Overall mortality was 32% (n = 23) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 25% (n = 17) in the resection group (P = .36). The stoma prevalence was 8% (n = 4) in the laparoscopic lavage group vs 33% (n = 17; P = .002) in the resection group among patients who remained alive, and secondary operations, including stoma reversal, were performed in 36% (n = 26) vs 35% (n = 24; P = .92), respectively. Recurrence of diverticulitis was higher following laparoscopic lavage (21% [n = 15] vs 4% [n = 3]; P = .004). In the laparoscopic lavage group, 30% (n = 21) underwent a sigmoid resection. There were no significant differences in the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire or Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores between the groups.Conclusions and relevanceLong-term follow-up showed no differences in severe complications. Recurrence of diverticulitis after laparoscopic lavage was more common, often leading to sigmoid resection. This must be weighed against the lower stoma prevalence in this group. Shared decision-making considering both short-term and long-term consequences is encouraged.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047462.
| S-EPMC7758831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis can be characterised by high morbidity and mortality rates. While the scientific community focuses on laparoscopic lavage as an alternative for laparotomy, the option of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy seems overlooked. We compared morbidity and hospital stay following acute laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) and open sigmoidectomy (OS) for perforated diverticulitis.MethodsThis retrospective cohort parallel to the Ladies trial included patients from 28 Dutch academic or teaching hospitals between July 2010 and July 2014. Patients with LS were matched 1:2 to OS using the propensity score for age, gender, previous laparotomy, CRP level, gastrointestinal surgeon, and Hinchey classification.ResultsThe propensity-matched cohort consisted of 39 patients with LS and 78 patients with OS, selected from a sample of 307 consecutive patients with purulent or faecal perforated diverticulitis. In both groups, 66 % of the patients had Hartmann's procedure and 34 % had primary anastomosis. The hospital stay was shorter following LS (LS 7 vs OS 9 days; P = 0.016), and the postoperative morbidity rate was lower following LS (LS 44 % vs OS 66 %; P = 0.016). Mortality was low in both groups (LS 3 % vs OS 4 %; P = 0.685). The stoma reversal rate after Hartmann's procedure was higher following laparoscopy, with a probability of being stoma-free at 12 months of 88 and 62 % in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (P = 0.019). After primary anastomosis, the probability of reversal was 100 % in both groups.ConclusionsIn this propensity score-matched cohort, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy is superior to open sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with regard to postoperative morbidity and hospital stay.
| S-EPMC4992031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Damage control surgery (DCS) with abdominal negative pressure therapy and delayed anastomosis creation in patients with perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis was established at our Institution in 2006 and has been published. The concept was adopted in other hospitals and published as a case series. This is the first prospectively controlled randomized study comparing DCS and conventional treatment (Group C) in this setting. METHODS:All consecutive patients from 2013 to 2018 with indication for surgery were screened and randomized to Group DCS or Group C. The primary outcome was the rate of reconstructed bowel at discharge and at 6 month. Informed consent was obtained. The trial was approved by the local ethics committee and registered at CinicalTrials.gov: NCT04034407. RESULTS:A total of 56 patients were screened; 41 patients gave informed consent to participate and ultimately 21 patients (9 female) with intraoperatively confirmed Hinchey III (n?=?14, 67%) or IV (n?=?7, 33%), and a median (range) age of 66 (42-92), Mannheim Peritonitis Index of 25 (12-37) and Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 (0-10) were intraoperatively randomized and treated as Group DCS (n?=?13) or Group C (n?=?8). Per protocol analysis: A primary anastomosis without ileostomy (PA) was performed in 92% (11/12) patients in Group DCS at the second-look operation, one patient died before second look, and one underwent a Hartmann procedure (HP). In Group C 63% (5/8) patients received a PA and 38% (3/8) patients a HP. Two patients in Group C, but none in Group DCS experienced anastomotic leakage (AI). ICU and hospital stay was median (range) 2 (1-10) and 17.5 (12-43) in DCS and 2 (1-62) and 22 (13-65) days in group C. In Group DCS 8% (1/12) patients was discharged with a stoma versus 57% (4/7) in Group C (p?=?0.038, n.s., ??=?0.025); one patient died before discharge. The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for discharge with a stoma is 0.068 (0.005-0.861). Intent to treat analysis: A PA was performed in 90% (9/10) of patients randomized to DCS, one patient died before the second look, and one patient received a HP. In group C, 70% (7/10) were treated with PA and 30% (3/10) with HP. 29% (2/7) experienced AI treated with protective ileostomy. In group DCS, 9% (1/11) were discharged with a stoma versus 40% (4/10) in group C (p?=?0.14, n.s.). The odds ratio for discharge with a stoma is 0.139 (0.012-1.608). CONCLUSION:This is the first prospectively randomized controlled study showing that damage control surgery in perforated diverticulitis Hinchey III and IV enhances reconstruction of bowel continuity and can reduce the stoma rate at discharge.
| S-EPMC7599157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) complications arise in approximately 8% to 35% patients and the most common ones are represented by phlegmon or abscess, followed by perforation, peritonitis, obstruction, and fistula. In accordance with current guidelines, patients affected by generalized peritonitis should undergo emergency surgery. However, decisions on whether and when to operate ACD patients remain a substantially debated topic while algorithm for the best treatment has not yet been determined. Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a well-established method in treating critically ill patients with traumatic abdomen injuries. At present, such surgical approach is also finding application in non-traumatic emergencies such as perforated ACD. Thanks to a thorough systematic review of the literature, we aimed at achieving deeper knowledge of both indications and short- and long-term outcomes related to DCS in perforated ACD.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.ResultsThe 8 included articles covered an approximately 13 years study period (2006-2018), with a total 359 patient population. At presentation, most patients showed III and IV American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.6%) while having Hinchey III perforated ACD (69.9%). Most patients received a limited resection plus vacuum-assisted closure at first-look while about half entire population underwent primary resection anastomosis (PRA) at a second-look. Overall morbidity rate, 30-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate at follow-up were between 23% and 74%, 0% and 20%, 7% and 33%, respectively. Patients had a 100% definitive abdominal wall closure rate and a definitive stoma rate at follow-up ranging between 0% and 33%.ConclusionDCS application to ACD patients seems to offer good outcomes with a lower percentage of patients with definitive ostomy, if compared to Hartmann's procedure. However, correct definition of DCS eligible patients is paramount in avoiding overtreatment. In accordance to 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines, DCS remains an effective surgical strategy in critically ill patients affected by sepsis/septic shock and hemodynamical unstability.
| S-EPMC7710165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePerforated diverticulitis often requires surgery with a colon resection such as Hartmann's procedure, with inherent morbidity. Recent studies suggest that laparoscopic lavage may be an alternative surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to compare re-operations, morbidity, and mortality as well as health economic outcomes between laparoscopic lavage and colon resection for perforated purulent diverticulitis.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Embase were searched. Published randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohorts with laparoscopic lavage and colon resection as interventions were identified. Trial limitations were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Re-operations, complications at 90 days classified according to Clavien-Dindo and mortality were extracted.ResultsThree randomized trials published between 2005 and 2015 were included in the analysis. The studies included a total of 358 patients with 185 patients undergoing laparoscopic lavage. At 12 months, the relative risk of having a re-operation was lower for laparoscopic lavage compared to colon resection in the two trials that had a 12 month follow-up. We found no significant differences in Clavien-Dindo complications classified more than level IIIB or mortality at 90 days.ConclusionsThe risk for re-operations within the first 12 months after index surgery was lower for laparoscopic lavage compared to colon resection, with overall comparable morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, Hartmann's resection was more costly than laparoscopic lavage. We therefore consider laparoscopic lavage a valid alternative to surgery with resection for perforated purulent diverticulitis.
| S-EPMC5285409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDiverticular perforation due to foreign body ingestion is an uncommon but important cause of gastrointestinal tract injury. The aim of this study is to discuss relevant findings seen in diverticulitis caused by foreign bodies and its treatment.Case presentationIn this report, we present a case of a 30-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department with two days of severe abdominal pain and diarrhea. Computed tomography of the patient's abdomen and pelvis revealed micro-perforations of the sigmoid colon with pneumoperitoneum and an intraluminal foreign body. She subsequently underwent an exploratory laparotomy with sigmoid resection and end-to-end anastomosis due to acute diverticulitis complicated by feculent peritonitis. Gross examination of the excised specimen revealed two large perforations and an intraluminal chicken bone. After a six-day hospitalization, the patient was discharged with an excellent prognosis.Discussion and conclusionPrompt radiological evaluation and classification of the degree of diverticulitis using the Hinchey classification system in this patient helped guide definitive treatment. Usage of this classification scheme in foreign body diverticulitis is valuable in determining whether a surgical or non-surgical approach is necessary.
| S-EPMC8350185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic peritoneal lavage is an alternative to sigmoid resection in selected patients presenting with purulent peritonitis from perforated diverticulitis. Although recent trials have lacked superiority for lavage in terms of morbidity, mortality was not compromised, and beneficial secondary outcomes were shown. These included shorter duration of surgery, less stoma formation and less surgical reintervention (including stoma reversal) for laparoscopic lavage versus sigmoid resection respectively. The cost analysis of laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in the Ladies RCT was assessed in the present study.MethodsThis study involved an economic evaluation of the randomized LOLA (LaparOscopic LAvage) arm of the Ladies trial (comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoid resection in patients with purulent peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis). The actual resource use per individual patient was documented prospectively and analysed (according to intention-to-treat) for up to 1 year after randomization.ResultsEighty-eight patients were randomized to either laparoscopic lavage (46) or sigmoid resection (42). The total medical costs for lavage were lower (mean difference € - 3512, 95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated c.i. -16 020 to 8149). Surgical reintervention increased costs in the lavage group, whereas stoma reversal increased costs in the sigmoid resection group. Differences in favour of laparoscopy were robust when costs were varied by ±20 per cent in a sensitivity analysis (mean cost difference € - 2509 to -4438).ConclusionLaparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis is more cost-effective than sigmoid resection.
| S-EPMC6681137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cystinuria is a genetic disorder that causes recurrent nephrolithiasis. It is the most common type of monogenic stone disease accounting for 6%-8% of pediatric nephrolithiasis. Due to recurrent episodes of nephrolithiasis, it is associated with a very high prevalence of chronic kidney disease. Life-long medical treatment to reduce stone formation is critical in preventing chronic kidney disease and renal failure in cystinuria. In this article, we provide an overview of cystinuria with a special emphasis on medical treatment options including new agents such as alpha-lipoic acid.
| S-EPMC9317473 | biostudies-literature